The rise of generative AI has presented a global challenge to copyright law regarding authorship and human creativity. This has implications for the ability of creators to control and monetise their work, in addition to incentives to use innovative technologies. Currently, the EU lacks specific rules on the copyrightability of AI-generated works, but existing case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and developments at Member State level demonstrate a strong need for human creativity. The European Parliament has also advocated a human-centric approach while calling for further analysis of how intellectual property rights are applied to content created with the use of AI tools. Most countries, including the United States, maintain a human-centric approach, limiting copyright to works with significant human involvement in the creative process. However, not all the international approaches and practices are aligned, and this briefing gives examples from a selection of different jurisdictions. Certain common-law countries, including the United Kingdom, grant copyright to 'computer-generated' works without a human author while, in a slightly contradictory manner, assigning authorship to the person responsible for the arrangements for the creation of the work. Chinese courts show mixed rulings, sometimes granting copyright based on sufficient human effort in selecting and editing prompts. Cases like the artwork called 'Suryast', produced with the help of AI, reveal conflicting copyright decisions across the world, with AI being recognised as a co-author in some countries. Uniquely, Ukraine has adopted a 'sui generis' right to provide alternative protection for AI-generated images, distinct from traditional copyright. As a result, there may be a need for greater coordination globally to reduce legal uncertainty and to determine the level of human involvement needed for copyright protection. Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP Read more